Is Sheffield Council about to sell off bits of Graves Park YET AGAIN?

[Localman]

The choice should be option d) - the trustees should not have neglected to maintain the cottage in the first place.

 

OK. Let’s take your option (d) and follow the logic through.

 

Let us for a moment assume that the repairs and modernisation of Cobnar Cottage cost £60,000. There might be an argument that, if the major repairs and modernisation had been undertaken to Cobnar Cottage earlier, then the cost would have been lower, say £50,000 – but all properties of this age require that order of magnitude of investment.

 

There was no magic £50,000. It had to come from somewhere.

 

The obvious one is for someone (eg the council) to lend the Trust £50,000 which is to be repaid from the rental income received from a tenant. [A back of the envelope analysis suggests that the rental income from a refurbished Cobnar Cottage would repay both this loan and other landlord management and maintenance costs over 25 years.]

 

[Having just checked the accounts – see link above - alternative routes could have been either or a mixture of:

(1) Additional income from fees. So, for example, doubling car park charges and increasing other fees.

(2) Cutting repairs and maintenance to the park, playgrounds, sports facilities

(3) An extra grant from the Council.

However, I haven’t seen anyone propose these.]

 

So, your Option (d) means:

Cobnar Cottage is renovated but has to be rented out for at least 25 years. There is with no public benefit nor public access. The good news is that a family has a home. The bad news is that there is not £200,000 to invest in Graves Park.

 

I have updated the choices to include your Option (d).

 

So, Jon26 and Foxy Lady……….and anyone else for that matter……..which is it to be?:

 

(a) Tens of thousands of pounds being spent on demolishing Cobnar Cottage and landscaping the site. (Friends’ proposal 1); or

(b) Cobnar Cottage being let at no rent to an unknown stonemason, who will rebuild the stonework over an unspecified period at the conclusion of which there would still not be a property fit to live in (Friends proposal 2); or

© The proceeds of the sale of Cobnar Cottage be used – some attracting matched funding – to provide £200,000 worth of investment in sports facilities, new toilets, playground upgrades etc etc in Graves Park, AND that a family gets to live in the modernised and refurbished Cobnar Cottage. (What is now proposed); or

(d) Cobnar Cottage is renovated but has to be rented out for at least 25 years. There is with no public benefit nor public access. The good news is that a family has a home. The bad news is that there is not £200,000 to invest in Graves Park. (Jon26 proposal)

 

---------- Post added 07-04-2016 at 11:18 ----------

 

like one of our readers points out graves park was a gift to the city by J graves along with other philanthropic gifts to the city and it's up to the council to maintain any property in the parkso the the council should think again before selling parts or the park steve

 

As far as I can see, there is no proposal to sell any parkland. The choices (a)-(d) are set out above............unless you have another one?

[Jon26]

OK. Let’s take your option (d) and follow the logic through.

 

Let us for a moment assume that the repairs and modernisation of Cobnar Cottage cost £60,000. There might be an argument that, if the major repairs and modernisation had been undertaken to Cobnar Cottage earlier, then the cost would have been lower, say £50,000 – but all properties of this age require that order of magnitude of investment.

 

There was no magic £50,000. It had to come from somewhere.

 

The obvious one is for someone (eg the council) to lend the Trust £50,000 which is to be repaid from the rental income received from a tenant. [A back of the envelope analysis suggests that the rental income from a refurbished Cobnar Cottage would repay both this loan and other landlord management and maintenance costs over 25 years.]

 

[Having just checked the accounts – see link above - alternative routes could have been either or a mixture of:

(1) Additional income from fees. So, for example, doubling car park charges and increasing other fees.

(2) Cutting repairs and maintenance to the park, playgrounds, sports facilities

(3) An extra grant from the Council.

However, I haven’t seen anyone propose these.]

 

So, your Option (d) means:

Cobnar Cottage is renovated but has to be rented out for at least 25 years. There is with no public benefit nor public access. The good news is that a family has a home. The bad news is that there is not £200,000 to invest in Graves Park.

 

I have updated the choices to include your Option (d).

 

So, Jon26 and Foxy Lady……….and anyone else for that matter……..which is it to be?:

 

(a) Tens of thousands of pounds being spent on demolishing Cobnar Cottage and landscaping the site. (Friends’ proposal 1); or

(b) Cobnar Cottage being let at no rent to an unknown stonemason, who will rebuild the stonework over an unspecified period at the conclusion of which there would still not be a property fit to live in (Friends proposal 2); or

© The proceeds of the sale of Cobnar Cottage be used – some attracting matched funding – to provide £200,000 worth of investment in sports facilities, new toilets, playground upgrades etc etc in Graves Park, AND that a family gets to live in the modernised and refurbished Cobnar Cottage. (What is now proposed); or

(d) Cobnar Cottage is renovated but has to be rented out for at least 25 years. There is with no public benefit nor public access. The good news is that a family has a home. The bad news is that there is not £200,000 to invest in Graves Park. (Jon26 proposal)

 

---------- Post added 07-04-2016 at 11:18 ----------

 

 

As far as I can see, there is no proposal to sell any parkland. The choices (a)-(d) are set out above............unless you have another one?

 

Local man - this is not what I said. The cottage ended up in this situation because the councillors as trustees have neglected to maintain it. This is in the past. Anyone with common sense knows the overall costs to maintain a building are lower if the maintenance is done on a proactive rather than a reactive basis. So in effect the councillors as trustees have created this situation. Again, this is the past, the council needs to learn from this and start to manage costs effectively for their other responsibilities.

[Localman]

Anyone with common sense knows the overall costs to maintain a building are lower if the maintenance is done on a proactive rather than a reactive basis.

 

I have already taken account of the possibility that if the renovation works had been done earlier then they may have cost less, but they don't ever cost nothing! I do not know of a single 150 year old property that has not required a significant renovation investment to make it fit for occupation today.

 

So, the analysis of your proposal stands and the choices remain - unless someone comes up with another realistic alternative -

 

(a) Tens of thousands of pounds being spent on demolishing Cobnar Cottage and landscaping the site. (Friends’ proposal 1); or

(b) Cobnar Cottage being let at no rent to an unknown stonemason, who will rebuild the stonework over an unspecified period at the conclusion of which there would still not be a property fit to live in (Friends proposal 2); or

© The proceeds of the sale of Cobnar Cottage be used – some attracting matched funding – to provide £200,000 worth of investment in sports facilities, new toilets, playground upgrades etc etc in Graves Park, AND that a family gets to live in the modernised and refurbished Cobnar Cottage. (What is now proposed); or

(d) Cobnar Cottage is renovated but has to be rented out for at least 25 years. There is with no public benefit nor public access. The good news is that a family has a home. The bad news is that there is not £200,000 to invest in Graves Park. (Jon26 proposal)

[Jon26]

As I understand a lot of the damage was caused by a leak.

 

Typically if a leak is repaired promptly then the cost will be negligible. If you leave it a few days then the costs might creep into the hundreds or thousands price band. Where you leave it years as the council did that is how you arrive at your £50-60k estimate. I don't agree with your calculations as I believe they inflate the cost of the ongoing maintenance. This is my view based on my experience, clearly you have a different view. I will leave this thread now.

[Jonny5]

Localman is being completely disingenuous and deliberately misunderstanding your points Jon.

 

I don't blame you for not engaging with him further.

[I1L2T3]

I know my company and charity law is a bit rusty but, to the best of my recollection, a corporate body (here, the council) cannot be a trustee. A trustee has to be a person.

 

.

 

Sorry but you are bang wrong on this.

 

The Council has for many years been the charitable trustee of Graves Park and we have received a written acknowledgment from the Charity Commission that we have the power to sell the cottage

 

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--about/parks-woodlands--countryside/cobnar-cottage.html

[Narden Dee]

can anyone answer me the question of if the cottage stayed in council hands what benefit and enjoyment would it have brought to the park for the public ?

would it be more or less than it still being in the park but in private hands ?

[Localman]

This is my view based on my experience, clearly you have a different view. I will leave this thread now.

 

It's always good to substitute your 'experience' for facts. Clearly you didn't take any trouble to find out the facts or examine the auction particulars.

 

---------- Post added 12-04-2016 at 02:54 ----------

 

Sorry but you are bang wrong on this.

 

The Council has for many years been the charitable trustee of Graves Park and we have received a written acknowledgment from the Charity Commission that we have the power to sell the cottage

 

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--about/parks-woodlands--countryside/cobnar-cottage.html

 

I told you I was rusty on that aspect, but it's irrelevant to the principal issue.

 

---------- Post added 12-04-2016 at 02:59 ----------

 

can anyone answer me the question of if the cottage stayed in council hands what benefit and enjoyment would it have brought to the park for the public ?

would it be more or less than it still being in the park but in private hands ?

 

Excellent question. Not surprised that Foxy Lady (who appears to have suddenly gone quiet) and Jonny5 have not responded.

 

Clearly, if options (a), (b) and (d) had been pursued, with retention of the Cottage by the Graves Trust, there would have been:

(1) no additional benefit or enjoyment by the public;

(2) a significant reduction in enhanced and improved facilities for the public to enjoy.

[foxy lady]

It's always good to substitute your 'experience' for facts. Clearly you didn't take any trouble to find out the facts or examine the auction particulars.

 

---------- Post added 12-04-2016 at 02:54 ----------

 

 

I told you I was rusty on that aspect, but it's irrelevant to the principal issue.

 

---------- Post added 12-04-2016 at 02:59 ----------

 

 

Excellent question. Not surprised that Foxy Lady (who appears to have suddenly gone quiet) and Jonny5 have not responded.

 

Clearly, if options (a), (b) and (d) had been pursued, with retention of the Cottage by the Graves Trust, there would have been:

(1) no additional benefit or enjoyment by the public;

(2) a significant reduction in enhanced and improved facilities for the public to enjoy.

 

Oh don't worry about me. I've not gone away. The park and all its building were a gift for JG Graves to the people of Sheffield, not to the City Council. The land and buildings are held in charitable trust for the people of Sheffield, and not Sheffield Council

 

The charitable deeds are pretty clear. They state that land may only be sold as a last resort and the proceeds of the sale used to buy replacement land of equal amenity value to the park. The cottage was on park land. The building only in need of repair due to the negligence of the trustees who just happen to be councillors. The cottage fell into disrepair whilst in the care of the council It was their responsibility to insure it and maintain it. It should have been their responsibility to restore it to the condition in which they took charge of it at their expence.

 

So if the councillors as trustees deemed that they had no other option than selling the land the proceeds must be used to buy replacement land and are not available to the council as funds that they can spend on anything else.

 

If you rent a house it does not entitle you to strip out the plumbing and sell it to pay the rent, or buy beer. Graves Park does not belong to the City Council. It is not theirs to sell. Cobnar Cottage was not theirs to sell. This will not end here.

Edited April 13, 2016 by foxy lady

[Narden Dee]

Oh don't worry about me. I've not gone away. The park and all its building were a gift for JG Graves to the people of Sheffield, not to the City Council. The land and buildings are held in charitable trust for the people of Sheffield, and not Sheffield Council

 

The charitable deeds are pretty clear. They state that land may only be sold as a last resort and the proceeds of the sale used to buy replacement land of equal amenity value to the park. The cottage was on park land. The building only in need of repair due to the negligence of the trustees who just happen to be councillors. The cottage fell into disrepair whilst in the care of the council It was their responsibility to insure it and maintain it. It should have been their responsibility to restore it to the condition in which they took charge of it at their expence.

 

So if the councillors as trustees deemed that they had no other option than selling the land the proceeds must be used to buy replacement land and are not available to the council as funds that they can spend on anything else.

 

If you rent a house it does not entitle you to strip out the plumbing and sell it to pay the rent, or buy beer. Graves Park does not belong to the City Council. It is not theirs to sell. Cobnar Cottage was not theirs to sell. This will not end here.

Well it has ended as the building has been sold but any answer to my question ?

if the cottage stayed in council hands what benefit and enjoyment would it have brought to the park for the public ?

would it be more or less than it still being in the park but in private hands ?